Or are compulsory vaccines the best political policy the Tories have ever come up with?

[HollyGoLoudly1]

In the news today, Tory health secretary is investigating compulsory vaccinations for school children.

Before I don my hard hat, for background I have a close family member who is immunocompromised. He has had multiple hospital admissions over the years for simple viruses and other illnesses that most of us wouldn't even need to stay off work for. If he catches something like measles it could be fatal.

To be honest, even disregarding this family member, I am very, very pro-vaccine and would support this policy no matter what. Even if it is from the Tories (who I definitely do not support).

puts on hard hat

So why do doctors ask before they even touch my children? If that was the case, from the time you access medical treatment, all decision making would be taken out of your hands. One of my sons is on the waiting list to have his tonsils out, why are we having a pre surgical appointment in part to to sign consent if it isn't our call? Why did they give us a choice of waiting it out to see if he grows out of the repeated tonsillitis or having the surgery now? Why didn't they just say what they will do and be done with it? Why did they ask if I want to see a specialist rather than saying I have to take him given that any infection could result in a fatal sepsis type complication?

So why do doctors ask before they even touch my children? If that was the case, from the time you access medical treatment, all decision making would be taken out of your hands.

The doctors can't override individual decisions. The courts can though and will do if they consider parents aren't acting in their childrens' interest. In constrast if you aren't acting in your own you are usually left to it if you are of sound mind.

There is no right to insist that others inject themselves with drugs to mitigate the effects of your own ill-health.

And I’m not suggesting there should be. However I’m suggesting that the consequences of the choice not to do so should not be disproportionately visited upon others.

I am not up for truly compulsory vaccination or any other compulsory medical treatments. I think the equivalent you’ve chosen are false in that context. This is about the potential impacts or consequences of declining a medical procedure when that choice directly restricts others’ access to state services. Who should then get to use the services?

The choice not to vaccinate is both deeply individual and deeply individualistic. In the context of the latter, and incompatible rights to schooling, I don’t come down on the side of the individualistic choice taking priority in accessing community services.

I'm totally against punishing parents or kids for refusing vaccinations

Particularly against fines or cutting benefits - an unvaccinated child from a wealthy mc family can infect someone just as easily as an unvaccinated poor child

BUT - it's about protecting the other kids

Kids who cannot be vaccinated should be protected - as far as possible - from being harmed by kids whose parents chose not to let them be vaccinated

So I'd support the suggestion to make the MMR (or equivalent) vaccination one of the conditions for school enrollment

"An unvaccinated healthy child whose parents have exercised bodily autonomy on their behalf wants to access state education.

So does an immunocompromised child, whose ability to access that education may be reduced or removed because of the risk posed by unvaccinated children."

^This

Out of interest which religions forbid vaccination? Genuinely asking as far as I’m aware all religious scripture pre-dates the invention of vaccines

I would like to know this too.

Call me selfish but I have a severely immunocompromised child that has spent far too long in hospital suffering because of shitty decisions from other people, those that don't immunise their kids and those that send their kids to school or go to work when they're sick

Colds and sickness bugs I suppose? Which you can't immunise against.

People will go to work when they are ill because otherwise they would lose their jobs. And the Tory party that wants to bring in this compulsory policy also want to destroy employment rights (do not be taken in by the minimum wage promises).

Out of interest which religions forbid vaccination? Genuinely asking as far as I’m aware all religious scripture pre-dates the invention of vaccines

I think it's the pro-life faction who object to the cell cultures from aborted tissue used years ago.

As I understand it the current outbreak in NYC is owing to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population in Brooklyn subscribing to the conspiracy theories surrounding the MMR in particular. A lot of them don't even have internet access so it's not easily undone.

‘I think it's the pro-life faction who object to the cell cultures from aborted tissue used years ago.’

I thought that might be the case. Sigh.

@woodchuck99

But to get the courts to agree that the parents are not acting in the best interests due to an individual decision is very hard. I found this out when I became a teacher and found out that one of the reasons students aren't getting what they are entitled to is because their parents won't consent to it. These students have extremely limited access to education and may even harm themselves or others due to their lack of formal and funded support but we still have no right to overturn it and SS also see it as individual choice unless it is part of wider abuse of the child. Out of probably 50 students I've met in this position, exactly one was formally escalated by SS (the girl who was thought to be a witch) after they found other evidence of abuse. They would not have acted on their failure to consent to assessment alone.

In the USA, some of the tinfoil survivalists / far right / extreme Trumpers oppose vaccinations
because they see them as coming from the state, therefore the thin end of the socialist wedge

Jehovah Witnesses believe that the circulation shouldn't be broken so some extremely religious JWs might feel any drug going into a vein is forbidden.

Some have fear that the ingredients of the vaccine aren't halal/kosher/vegan.

Others simply believe that God's will shouldn't be obstructed up to an including your child dying of a plague like illness.

Yeah again, as a senior teacher who becomes privy to the medical conditions of students in a diverse school, the biggest risk to immunocompromised students are cold, coughs and tummy bugs.

JassyRadlett

But the rights to education and healthcare are guaranteed to individuals. If a child can not access them because they are too ill to be exposed to other children - who might be carrying a virus whether vaccinated or not - then this should be treated as a need for adjustments and a tutor or other resources provided. That is how we get round this without infringing on people’s legitimate rights to decline a treatment. Not by forcing people to accept the treatment or be denied access to services.

Yeah again, as a senior teacher who becomes privy to the medical conditions of students in a diverse school, the biggest risk to immunocompromised students are cold, coughs and tummy bugs.

That will change if we lose herd immunity to diseases such as measles.

But to get the courts to agree that the parents are not acting in the best interests due to an individual decision is very hard.

Yes, but my point is that there is an authority above the parents already. The fact that the authority is rarely used doesn't mean it is not there. Children aren't at the total mercy of their parents thankfully and they may be even less so if it becomes compulsory to be vaccinated (unless good reason for not) before starting school.

But you're talking as if parents not following very wise medical recommendations like "your child needs antibiotics" or "your child would seriously benefit from seeing an OT" are valid reasons for escalation. They aren't. It has to be life or death and the most extreme versions of life vs death. I've met a JW child who needs a transfusion and mum refused. They simply reiterated that this is what they recommend and lo and behold, they found other ways to improve the child's condition. Nobody ever mentioned court even though the child was very unwell.

But you're talking as if parents not following very wise medical recommendations like "your child needs antibiotics" or "your child would seriously benefit from seeing an OT" are valid reasons for escalation

That might be your interpretation but it's not what I mean. My point is that parents don't have ultimate control of their children's bodies anyway and rightly so. The fact that it can be so hard to make some parents act in the best interests of their children because you have to go to court is more reason to take control away with laws rather than the other way around.

I think what you're forgetting is that people wouldn't stand for it. If you can force people to take certain medical approaches with their children, then you can force them to learn about say,trans issues at whatever age as research has deemed that it is necessary and appropriate to be part of the general curriculum. Even if people agree with compulsory vaccination or forfeits for not vaccinating, they wouldn't agree with the idea of their child being banned from school unless they are part of sex education where issues they don't want discussed with their child are lesson themes. Or something else. So even though it might sound good on paper, as soon as it was explored and they used it as a gateway to get you to do other things the Government recommends, most in support would back down.

You still didn't answr my question, if parents have no rights, why was I asked what route I want to take despite them recommending waiting it out (as research suggests). Why am I allowed to give my 3-4 year old an operation he might not need if we wait 5 years? Why am I allowed to decide that repeated tonsillitis until the age of 9 is worse than the temporary pain of surgery and possible increase in chest infections that will occur if he has them out? This is on the NHS btw,hence the waiting list.

But the rights to education and healthcare are guaranteed to individuals.

They aren’t, in practice. There are very many ways in which the rights are already limited, particularly the right to an effective education. Some of the restrictions are on the face of the HRA.

If a child can not access them because they are too ill to be exposed to other children - who might be carrying a virus whether vaccinated or not - then this should be treated as a need for adjustments and a tutor or other resources provided. That is how we get round this without infringing on people’s legitimate rights to decline a treatment. Not by forcing people to accept the treatment or be denied access to services.

But where particular diseases that can be prevented are a risk to vulnerable individuals, why should they be the ones forced to accept a lesser service? Why not the unvaccinated children reducing the risk they pose to the wider population by taking the tutor, or being homeschooled as their effective education? Otherwise you are coercing other parents to forego their child’s right to the same education because the risk of serious illness has become unacceptably high due to breakdown of herd immunity.

You and I disagree on this, and I don’t think we’ll ever agree. I totally agree on the right to bodily autonomy. I don’t believe the exercise of that right means should be free of any consequences if it has a negative impact on others.

Ultimately, we are willing to visit shitty things upon others, we should be willing to take a share of that shit for ourselves.

a. big problem with compulsory medication

b. big problem with believing the Tories won't say anything to get votes then ooof did we really say that? Well it would be quite difficult to implement won't it... maybe we won't after all. They're lying liars, remember.

JassyRadlett

We will never agree. You are right.

@JassyRadlett

You make a good argument in theory but the reality is that most people with measles stay at home, most people with a cold do not. These vulnerable children you speak of are not protected from death by herd immunisation of any of these diseases like measles because more die of common viruses like colds and the flu. If herd immunity against measles could ensure no student with HIV or another immune condition would catch anything that could make them unwell, I could get behind your point a bit more but it won't. Even when we had excellent herd immunity,those children still came to school, caught a virus and it spreads to their heart and they die 2 days later.

I think what you're forgetting is that people wouldn't stand for it

People have to stand for it if the court orders them to do something and they have to abide by laws whether they agree with them or not. Regarding vaccinations they wouldn't change the law to state that children have been vaccinated but they can prevent them from attending state schools.

You still didn't answr my question, if parents have no rights

I didn't say they had no rights. I said that at the moment the court can overrule them if they think it necessary. Parents don't have total control of their childrens bodies in the way that they do their own and I think if anything their "rights" should be further removed.

I agree with the idea my mum is immunocompromised she can’t get so much as chicken pox it would put her in hospital. Everyone needs to stop putting not only their children at risk but people around them at risk too. I seen this on Facebook and I think a lot of people need to read it and think about how they are going to explain their stupid decision to their children.

People would vote out any party that wants to make decisions about what their child (or them) should be exposed to and when.